Primary author, Driver, filed House Bill 1893 concerning handguns on college campuses on February 26, 2009 (Stage 1). The bill was reported out of House committee on Public Safety with a vote of: 5 ayes, 3 nays, 0 present that were not voting, and 1 absent on. The companion bill, which is identical to the house bill and written by Wentworth, reached Stage 1 by being filed, Stage 2, meaning it is out of Senate Committee on May 14, 2009, Stage 3, meaning it was voted on by the Senate on May 20, 2009, and Stage 4, meaning it is out of House Committee on May 22, 2009. Stage 5, where the House votes on the bill, has not yet been reached. CSHB 1893 would amend Penal Code, sec. 46.03 creating an exception to the prohibition against carrying a weapon at a college, private university, or public university, as long as the person carrying the weapon had a concealed handgun license issued under Government Code, ch. 411. Also, CSHB 1893 would amend Penal Code, sec. 46.035 that a person carrying a concealed handgun with a concealed handgun license could carry one at a collegiate sporting event as long as the stadium did not have signs posted in noticeable places that stated otherwise as required by Penal Code, sec. 30.06. Furthermore, CSHB would amend Government Code, ch. 411, adding sec. 411.2031 allowing a person with a concealed handgun license to carry a weapon while on the campus of a private or public institution of higher education; the bill would also keep the schools from taking up rules against concealed handgun license holders carrying their guns, with two exceptions: public and private colleges and universities can set up rules concerning the storage of handguns in residential buildings, including dormitories, that are owned or operated by the school and located on their campuses; and a private college or university can forbid the carrying of weapons by concealed handgun license holders after having consulting with the students, faculty, and staff of that school. Additionally, CSHB 1893 would amend Government Code, 411.208 supplying immunity to public and private colleges and universities and their employees and officers from the actions of a concealed handgun license holder. The companion bill was amended seven times. Some of the amendments just clarify the words the author was writing about. However, one of the amendments states that a parent of a student or a student living in a dorm or other residential building owned by the institution may request to live in a living area that has rules prohibiting a license holder from carrying or processing a handgun there. Another amendment states that the institutions may make rules prohibiting the carrying of handguns where alcohol is sold or served for on-campus consumption, at a hospital that is maintained or operated by the institution, or at any meeting of the governing board. If the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board informs the institution that there has been an increase in gun-related violence on college campuses then the institution with the increase can establish rules or regulations prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on their campus. Moreover, the board must take an on-going study of weather handgun violence has increased on the college campuses due to the newly enacted bill, and if there is an increase in handgun related violence on college campuses the board must notify the school in writing.
CSHB would take effect on September 1, 2009 if put into action.
Supporters say that passing CSHB 1893 would remove the invented line around college campuses and doing so would not make concealed hand gun license holders any less responsible or less apt to obey the law. Supporters do not think that college campuses should be treated any different than any other public place. Supporters argue that there are still certain requirements that concealed handgun license holders must obtain, and that the bill would only apply to parent visitors, faculty, staff, and adult students-not arming large numbers of undergraduate students. Supporters of CSHB 1893 also believe that the bill would lower the vulnerability of the college campus body should there be an event such as the killings at Virginia Tech. The bill would also provide protection for students who wish to carry a weapon while traveling alone in the dark. Furthermore, supporters note that the bill would not handicap the college campuses ability to make rules on the storage of handguns in dorms or other campus owned housing; plus there would be flexibility for the colleges and universities to make rules after speaking with the campus body. Also, the bill would grant immunity to the colleges and universities for actions of the concealed handgun license holders. In addition, supporters convey that CSHB 1893 would provide a balance between the Second Amendment and protecting the safety of the public by demanding notices about not allowing handguns at athletic events. Supporters also communicate that there are college campuses that already allow handguns on their campuses, and that CSHB 1893 would not be a brand new idea and action. Supporters also say that the guns would not distract the students from learning, and that the key to concealed handguns is that they are concealed; authorizing punishment for those who do not abide. Supporters also do not believe that professors should have to worry about students with a concealed handgun license and giving out bad grades because some students carry handguns illegally. Supporters also voice that people who are previously known as stable do not just snap and become aggressive, and that those who do cause a school shooting do not just snap but that they show multiple red flags prior to their violent actions. Moreover, supporters suggest that owners of concealed handguns do not carry them to chase of criminals but to protect themselves from harm, and that these concealed handgun license holders will not replace campus police. They also provide that there will be minute danger from a first responder and concealed handgun holder being involved in gun fire, and that most likely there will not be an ongoing shooting but that a shooting will be short and quick. Supporters add that prevention and being ready for violence are not completely separate and work together. They say that teaching the campus body to read warning signs of mental illness and providing counseling to those who are mentally ill would be helpful. Also, they believe that providing things such as campus alert systems, training for campus police, and allowing concealed handgun weapon holders to carry their weapons on campus would be positive additions to being prepared preventative. Lastly, supporters fight that the Second Amendment protecting the right to bear arms should be respected on college campuses, and that college campuses should not be able to make rules on prohibiting concealed handgun license holders from carrying their gun/s on campus.
Opponents say that carrying a concealed handgun on campus would not make college campuses safer and that doing so could actually increase the chances for violence. They state that most of the violence to college students occurs while they are off campus and that a study on guns and gun threats states that you are more likely to be threatened with a gun if you have on yourself. Opponents also say that allowing concealed handguns on campus would interrupt the learning environment, causing a disturbance in the interchange of ideas and the professors handing out rightful earned grades, all because of the fear of what an angry student who owns a concealed handgun might do if he/she were to become upset by one of these. They also note that people can still slip through the system and that CSHB 1893 would not protect the college campus from a dangerous killing; they state that both the killer from Virginia Tech and from the University of Texas both held their guns legally. Opponents voice that although concealed handgun license holders do not commit a significant portion of all crimes, some have been convicted of serious crimes. Opponents communicate that college campus shooting are a tragic yet extremely rare event, and that it is not very likely that a licensed concealed handgun weapon holder would be at the right place at the right time in order to stop the gunman; they believe making a law based on this intent would be bad public policy. Opponents also remind us that college campuses have means of extra protection for the campus body; they have trained campus police, emergency call boxes, and student, faculty, or staff can call for a police escort at night. In addition, opponents think that CSHB 1893 would generate tension between the First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and the Second Amendment right to bear arms; opponents think that current policies should be respected and that there is no need for CSHB 1893. Another opinion of opponents of CSHB 1893 is that there is no proof that the bill would have been able to stop or prevent that event which occurred at the University of Texas. They believe that passing the bill would not be respectful of colleges that have memories and pain of events similar to UT's. Furthermore, opponents predict that it would be unsafe for a licensed concealed handgun holder to try and stop a gunman; the crossfire would be dangerous to other students who are nearby. The opponents' view is that a gunman should be left in police hands. Opponents also reveal that guns are used more often for suicides than homicides, and allowing concealed handguns on campuses would not be a good idea because college is a stressful time for students and may only make the situation worse. Finally, opponents argue that it is expensive and hard for colleges to post signs at all of the entrances of a sporting event, consequently providing a gap, therefore concealed handgun license holders may get into a sporting event with their gun.
HB 1893 would have allowed handguns on college campuses, while allowing the campuses to make certain rules and regulations concerning the matter. The campuses would still retain some power and say over the handguns and would not be completely overpassed by this bill. The supporters put up a good fight for HB 1893, however the opponents as did as well. In conclusion, HB 1893 did not pass and will not become law.
Handguns on college campuses
Primary author, Driver, filed House Bill 1893 concerning handguns on college campuses on February 26, 2009 (Stage 1). The bill was reported out of House committee on Public Safety with a vote of: 5 ayes, 3 nays, 0 present that were not voting, and 1 absent on. The companion bill, which is identical to the house bill and written by Wentworth, reached Stage 1 by being filed, Stage 2, meaning it is out of Senate Committee on May 14, 2009, Stage 3, meaning it was voted on by the Senate on May 20, 2009, and Stage 4, meaning it is out of House Committee on May 22, 2009. Stage 5, where the House votes on the bill, has not yet been reached. CSHB 1893 would amend Penal Code, sec. 46.03 creating an exception to the prohibition against carrying a weapon at a college, private university, or public university, as long as the person carrying the weapon had a concealed handgun license issued under Government Code, ch. 411. Also, CSHB 1893 would amend Penal Code, sec. 46.035 that a person carrying a concealed handgun with a concealed handgun license could carry one at a collegiate sporting event as long as the stadium did not have signs posted in noticeable places that stated otherwise as required by Penal Code, sec. 30.06. Furthermore, CSHB would amend Government Code, ch. 411, adding sec. 411.2031 allowing a person with a concealed handgun license to carry a weapon while on the campus of a private or public institution of higher education; the bill would also keep the schools from taking up rules against concealed handgun license holders carrying their guns, with two exceptions: public and private colleges and universities can set up rules concerning the storage of handguns in residential buildings, including dormitories, that are owned or operated by the school and located on their campuses; and a private college or university can forbid the carrying of weapons by concealed handgun license holders after having consulting with the students, faculty, and staff of that school. Additionally, CSHB 1893 would amend Government Code, 411.208 supplying immunity to public and private colleges and universities and their employees and officers from the actions of a concealed handgun license holder. The companion bill was amended seven times. Some of the amendments just clarify the words the author was writing about. However, one of the amendments states that a parent of a student or a student living in a dorm or other residential building owned by the institution may request to live in a living area that has rules prohibiting a license holder from carrying or processing a handgun there. Another amendment states that the institutions may make rules prohibiting the carrying of handguns where alcohol is sold or served for on-campus consumption, at a hospital that is maintained or operated by the institution, or at any meeting of the governing board. If the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board informs the institution that there has been an increase in gun-related violence on college campuses then the institution with the increase can establish rules or regulations prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on their campus. Moreover, the board must take an on-going study of weather handgun violence has increased on the college campuses due to the newly enacted bill, and if there is an increase in handgun related violence on college campuses the board must notify the school in writing.
CSHB would take effect on September 1, 2009 if put into action.
Supporters say that passing CSHB 1893 would remove the invented line around college campuses and doing so would not make concealed hand gun license holders any less responsible or less apt to obey the law. Supporters do not think that college campuses should be treated any different than any other public place. Supporters argue that there are still certain requirements that concealed handgun license holders must obtain, and that the bill would only apply to parent visitors, faculty, staff, and adult students-not arming large numbers of undergraduate students. Supporters of CSHB 1893 also believe that the bill would lower the vulnerability of the college campus body should there be an event such as the killings at Virginia Tech. The bill would also provide protection for students who wish to carry a weapon while traveling alone in the dark. Furthermore, supporters note that the bill would not handicap the college campuses ability to make rules on the storage of handguns in dorms or other campus owned housing; plus there would be flexibility for the colleges and universities to make rules after speaking with the campus body. Also, the bill would grant immunity to the colleges and universities for actions of the concealed handgun license holders. In addition, supporters convey that CSHB 1893 would provide a balance between the Second Amendment and protecting the safety of the public by demanding notices about not allowing handguns at athletic events. Supporters also communicate that there are college campuses that already allow handguns on their campuses, and that CSHB 1893 would not be a brand new idea and action. Supporters also say that the guns would not distract the students from learning, and that the key to concealed handguns is that they are concealed; authorizing punishment for those who do not abide. Supporters also do not believe that professors should have to worry about students with a concealed handgun license and giving out bad grades because some students carry handguns illegally. Supporters also voice that people who are previously known as stable do not just snap and become aggressive, and that those who do cause a school shooting do not just snap but that they show multiple red flags prior to their violent actions. Moreover, supporters suggest that owners of concealed handguns do not carry them to chase of criminals but to protect themselves from harm, and that these concealed handgun license holders will not replace campus police. They also provide that there will be minute danger from a first responder and concealed handgun holder being involved in gun fire, and that most likely there will not be an ongoing shooting but that a shooting will be short and quick. Supporters add that prevention and being ready for violence are not completely separate and work together. They say that teaching the campus body to read warning signs of mental illness and providing counseling to those who are mentally ill would be helpful. Also, they believe that providing things such as campus alert systems, training for campus police, and allowing concealed handgun weapon holders to carry their weapons on campus would be positive additions to being prepared preventative. Lastly, supporters fight that the Second Amendment protecting the right to bear arms should be respected on college campuses, and that college campuses should not be able to make rules on prohibiting concealed handgun license holders from carrying their gun/s on campus.
Opponents say that carrying a concealed handgun on campus would not make college campuses safer and that doing so could actually increase the chances for violence. They state that most of the violence to college students occurs while they are off campus and that a study on guns and gun threats states that you are more likely to be threatened with a gun if you have on yourself. Opponents also say that allowing concealed handguns on campus would interrupt the learning environment, causing a disturbance in the interchange of ideas and the professors handing out rightful earned grades, all because of the fear of what an angry student who owns a concealed handgun might do if he/she were to become upset by one of these. They also note that people can still slip through the system and that CSHB 1893 would not protect the college campus from a dangerous killing; they state that both the killer from Virginia Tech and from the University of Texas both held their guns legally. Opponents voice that although concealed handgun license holders do not commit a significant portion of all crimes, some have been convicted of serious crimes. Opponents communicate that college campus shooting are a tragic yet extremely rare event, and that it is not very likely that a licensed concealed handgun weapon holder would be at the right place at the right time in order to stop the gunman; they believe making a law based on this intent would be bad public policy. Opponents also remind us that college campuses have means of extra protection for the campus body; they have trained campus police, emergency call boxes, and student, faculty, or staff can call for a police escort at night. In addition, opponents think that CSHB 1893 would generate tension between the First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and the Second Amendment right to bear arms; opponents think that current policies should be respected and that there is no need for CSHB 1893. Another opinion of opponents of CSHB 1893 is that there is no proof that the bill would have been able to stop or prevent that event which occurred at the University of Texas. They believe that passing the bill would not be respectful of colleges that have memories and pain of events similar to UT's. Furthermore, opponents predict that it would be unsafe for a licensed concealed handgun holder to try and stop a gunman; the crossfire would be dangerous to other students who are nearby. The opponents' view is that a gunman should be left in police hands. Opponents also reveal that guns are used more often for suicides than homicides, and allowing concealed handguns on campuses would not be a good idea because college is a stressful time for students and may only make the situation worse. Finally, opponents argue that it is expensive and hard for colleges to post signs at all of the entrances of a sporting event, consequently providing a gap, therefore concealed handgun license holders may get into a sporting event with their gun.
HB 1893 would have allowed handguns on college campuses, while allowing the campuses to make certain rules and regulations concerning the matter. The campuses would still retain some power and say over the handguns and would not be completely overpassed by this bill. The supporters put up a good fight for HB 1893, however the opponents as did as well. In conclusion, HB 1893 did not pass and will not become law.